Tuesday, 13 March 2007
Questions for Oral Answer
Questions to Ministers

1. Corrections, Minister and Department—Confidence of Prime Minister
2. Tax Cuts—Advisability
3. Early Childhood Education—Free Hours, Service Providers
4. Superannuation—1 April Increases
5. Corrections, Department—Confidence of Corrections, Minister
6. Crimes Act—Substituted Section 59, Legal Opinion
7. Early Childhood Education—Free Hours, Number of Recipients
8. Road Safety Campaign—School Students
9. Health Services—Whanganui District Health Board
10. Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill—Level of Support in House
Question No. 5 to Minister
11. State Housing—Income-related Rents
12. Labour, Department—Confidence

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Corrections, Minister and Department—Confidence of Prime Minister

1. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Corrections and his department; if so, why?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes, because the Minister is hard-working and conscientious. Although the department clearly has room to improve, I am confident that, with its current leadership, that will happen.

John Key: Does the Prime Minister agree with Barry Matthews that the Department of Corrections’ handling of Graeme Burton’s parole was “well managed”; if so, why?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am on the record as saying that it could have been better managed.

John Key: Does the Prime Minister stand by her previous comments in reference to Mr Matthews: “I think Barry is your man if you’ve got a problem and want it fixed.”; if so, why?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Because I actually have great respect for Barry Matthews, and I will support him fixing those problems in the department.

John Key: When the Minister of Corrections will not speak, and the chief executive of the Department of Corrections will but only to tell the public that as far as he is concerned the parole of Mr Burton was “well managed” and that he “doesn’t have blood on his hands”, why does the Prime Minister have confidence in Mr Matthews when the public of New Zealand clearly do not?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Because I know of Barry Matthews’ record as an outstanding public servant.

Hon Phil Goff: Has the Government identified any systemic problems in the way the parole system is operating, and how does the Government intend to address those systemic problems?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The Government has, as a result of the tragedy inflicted by Mr Burton on members of the public, decided to bring a number of changes to the House around the parole area. One change will clarify that, indeed, the Parole Board can receive information that is not sworn information, another will require that the Parole Board have the power to call its own evidence or witnesses, and a third will enable the police, where they believe there is an undue risk to public safety, to go straight to the board to apply for recall.

John Key: If she is of the view that all is well with the leadership of the Department of Corrections under both Damien O’Connor and Barry Matthews, can she tell the country why she felt the need to step in and answer the media inquiries and would not let Mr O’Connor do that, and why does she think that Mr Matthews made the kinds of comments he did, implying that there was nothing wrong and therefore nothing to be fixed?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: In the first place, I do not believe Mr Matthews did imply that. In the second place, the reality is that several different portfolios were involved with the issue. If members are interested, I could point out that the Parole Board is appointed by the Attorney-General, that policy on parole is the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice, and that operations and the Department of Corrections come under a different Minister. That is why I, as Minister, decided to speak.

Hon Phil Goff: Can the Prime Minister confirm that if the National Party had introduced the reforms that came in in 2002, instead of doing nothing for 9 years, Mr Burton could well have faced a minimum parole period of at least 17 years—considerably longer than the 10 miserable years that were applied when the law was as it was under the National Government?

Madam SPEAKER: I did not hear that question. Could the member please repeat it succinctly. I ask for order, or members will be leaving the Chamber.

Hon Phil Goff: Can the Prime Minister confirm that if the reforms that were introduced in 2002, which required a minimum period of at least 17 years before parole could even be considered, had been introduced earlier under a National Government, which did absolutely nothing, Mr Burton might still have been in prison?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I can confirm that Mr Burton, I understand, was sentenced in 1992 to life imprisonment. Under the legislation, which the National Party did not change, he served 14 years before being let out on parole. Had he been sentenced under Labour’s legislation, the minimum non-parole period would have been 17 years—longer.

Nandor Tanczos: Does the Prime Minister accept that the Parole Board already has significant powers to receive information, including sworn or unsworn information as the Law Commission report makes clear, and what will her Government do about one of the biggest issues highlighted by this case, which is the lack of monitoring and enforcement of breaches of parole?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The answer to the first part of the question is yes. But as I said last Tuesday, I believe that the Parole Board applied an inappropriate standard of proof around allegations. The law change will deal with that, and make it abundantly clear that information can be received. Secondly, as a result of the review in the Department of Corrections of the management of parole, the chief executive of the department has announced three areas of tightening up on the management of people like Burton.

John Key: Is the Prime Minister not holding anyone accountable for the killings Mr Burton undertook because she is viewing this through a political prism, and she knows that this will reflect badly on the Government if she holds someone accountable, and, in the case of this decaying Labour Government, she is more interested in protecting Labour than she is in protecting the people of New Zealand?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I would point out that Judge Carruthers has accepted responsibility for the release; that is a very fine thing for him to have done.

John Key: Can the Prime Minister tell the people of New Zealand how many New Zealanders need to die before she considers Mr Matthews and Mr O’Connor not fit to have their jobs?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I have to say that with the best parole system in the world it would be impossible to say that someone like Burton would not have abused the trust put in him.

Tax Cuts—Advisability

2. SHANE JONES (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the advisability of extensive tax cuts in the current macroeconomic climate?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): The excellence of the member’s questions continues to amaze! I have seen a report that states that right “now is not the time to be giving extensive tax cuts.” That report, which is broadly in keeping with the recommendations of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, is from Mr Bill English and mirrors his previous indications on this matter.

Shane Jones: Has he seen any reports indicating an alternative assessment of the macroeconomic climate?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Not surprisingly, yes, because some people have two opinions on every subject. I have seen a report that suggests a policy of at least $7 billion of personal tax cuts over 3 years is appropriate, which was just the week previously from Mr John Key’s statement. It would seem that Mr English pays about the same amount of attention to his leader’s statements on tax policy as he does on his statements on meeting the Exclusive Brethren.

Hon Bill English: Does the Minister of Finance agree with the Reserve Bank of New Zealand’s assessment of his plans for very large spending in the run-up to the election that the likelihood is that the $7 billion he plans to spend will rise as Labour starts to bid for votes, and that those plans are keeping interest rates up higher for longer for every New Zealand household?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am glad the member mentioned that $7 billion, because he includes in that in the next 18 months $2 billion of business tax cuts. If he cares to think about it, he will realise the next 18 months takes us through to September 2008. A billion-a-year business tax package starting in April 2008 is not $2 billion in that period of time but is approximately half a billion dollars.

Shane Jones: What reports has he seen on the impact of business tax cuts of the type foreshadowed in the business tax review?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have seen a report from the Reserve Bank of New Zealand indicating that those changes should increase business investment and, in the long term, increase the sustainable levels of production. I have also seen a report describing them as wasteful spending that should be cut. That comment came from Mr English, who now seems to be suggesting that National is opposed to reducing the taxes on business.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister whether he has seen other reports, and one report dated 29 November 2006 that stated: “As we have made clear many times, National’s policy on tax has been, and remains, to reduce personal and company taxes across the board.”, and how does he reconcile that with last week’s quote—not by Mr John Key but, this time, by Bill English: “now is not the time to be giving extensive tax cuts.”—

Hon Bill English: Easily.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —I have not finished—which of those reports does he intend to follow?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: To quote Mr English, I can reconcile those two comments easily, because they were made by the co-leaders of the National Party, and therefore, by definition, are likely to contradict each other.

Rodney Hide: Has the Minister seen any reports of a political party that has always advocated extensive tax cuts, whatever the macroeconomic conditions, its own electoral fortunes, and the fads and fashions of politics—and, indeed, irrespective of floods and volcanoes?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes, I have. I have noted that both the size of the caucus and the size of its leader are shrinking at approximately the same rate.

Early Childhood Education—Free Hours, Service Providers

3. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement that “20 hours’ free education a week will be able to be provided for 3 and 4-year-olds at any licensed teacher-led service in New Zealand from July 2007”; if so, how many services does she expect to actually offer the 20 hours free?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes. Labour’s 20 hours’ free education policy will be available to all teacher-led early childhood education centres from 1 July, and the Government is optimistic about the take-up.

John Key: Can the Prime Minister assure the House that come 1 July there will be enough services signed up to the 20 hours’ free education policy to make good Trevor Mallard’s election promise that 92,000 children will get it; if not, why not?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I refer the member back to the statement in his original question. This 20 hours’ free education will be able to be provided. The providers are now working through the implications for them and we are optimistic about uptake.

John Key: How can she be confident that enough suppliers will actually provide this service, when last week the Auckland Kindergarten Association—representing 10 percent of all eligible 3 and 4-year-olds—stated that it could not afford to run the 20 free hours, over 60 percent of community-run nationwide services are stating that they cannot afford it, and the kindergarten association is running a not-for-profit service?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I do not accept the member’s figures, but what I would say is that I find it curious that the National Party, which opposes the policy, seems to want to throw infinite amounts of taxpayers’ money at it.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: In the light of that last answer, does the Prime Minister believe that the noise around this issue is coming more from those who oppose the objectives of the policy, or more from those who simply think the rate of payment should be higher?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: In the early childhood sector, it is hard to find anybody who opposes the objectives of the policy. The only outfit I can find that opposes 3 and 4-year-olds having 20 hours’ free education is the National Party.

John Key: Does the Prime Minister agree that her Government promised New Zealanders 20 free hours of early childhood education for 3 and 4-year-olds, yet the vast majority of New Zealanders will not be able to access that, because the scheme has been so badly designed that suppliers will not sign up, and how can that be interpreted by New Zealand parents, who relied on her promise, to be her keeping her word?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: All I can say is that it will be a substantial disappointment to the member as so many centres come into the policy.

John Key: Does the Prime Minister think she is misleading Kiwi mums and dads when they go to the Government website advertising the policy of 20 free hours and find listed as a provider Auckland Kindergarten Association, which last week said it would not be opting in?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Of course, it did not say that at all.

John Key: Does the Prime Minister agree with Steve Maharey that the conditions attached to the 20 free hours, in terms of the hourly rate and the inability for a co-subsidy, will not change?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: It is most unlikely, because they are based on a survey of the sector as of last year.

Superannuation—1 April Increases

4. R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) to the Minister of Finance: Has he received any reports on increases to superannuation coming into effect on 1 April this year?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): Yes. On 1 April a married couple on New Zealand superannuation will receive an additional $20.24 a week after tax, as a result of the agreement between New Zealand First and Labour to increase the rate of superannuation to 66 percent of average weekly earnings.

R Doug Woolerton: Does the Minister agree that in addition to delivering an extra $20 per week for married couples on superannuation, the introduction of the SuperGold card in August will improve the livelihood of superannuitants in New Zealand even further?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes, indeed. The SuperGold card will be a mechanism to ensure that New Zealand’s senior citizens are able to access a range of advantageous offers across a broad range of goods and services.

Darren Hughes: What other reports has the Minister seen on the impact of the Government’s steps to guarantee the sustainability of New Zealand superannuation into the future?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have seen a report from Standard and Poor’s that states that we are one of the best-prepared nations in the world to deal with the challenges of an ageing population, citing specifically the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. I have also seen a report stating that this fund is “the single biggest disincentive to save that you could ever have.” That quote came from Mr English, implying a desire, presumably, to either raid the fund or lower the level of New Zealand superannuation.

Corrections, Department—Confidence of Corrections, Minister

5. SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he have confidence in his department; if so, why?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections): Yes, but there is always room for improvement.

Simon Power: Does the Minister stand by the statements of Barry Matthews in relation to Graeme Burton that “There’s no blood on my hands.” and “I don’t think there is a nexus between the tragedy and the management of his parole.”, when the report concedes that because Burton’s probation officer was on leave, nothing was done for a week after Burton had breached parole for the second time, which gave Burton another week without a warrant being issued for his arrest?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I believe that the parole could have been managed better.

Simon Power: How can the Minister have confidence in a department that claims that Graeme Burton’s parole was “well managed” yet did not follow up on a warning issued to Burton, because his probation officer was on leave for a week, or does he believe that absence and neglect are the hallmarks of good management, in light of his own failure to front publicly on this issue for the 6 hours following the release of the reports?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I think the parole could have been managed better, and I accept there could have been more timely action taken by individuals within the probation service.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister confirm that my colleague Ron Mark has recently held meetings with him and the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections, Barry Matthews, regarding alleged corruption within the department, and that Mr Mark’s constructive role has led to an inquiry into corruption being initiated, and can he inform the House as to progress in respect of that inquiry to date?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Yes, I have met with Mr Mark on a number of occasions and he is assisting with some issues in the Department of Corrections. I can inform the House that the chief executive has advised me that today two staff at Rimutaka Prison have been suspended and one staff member has received notice of intention to suspend, and that a fourth staff member will be receiving notice of suspension on Monday.

Simon Power: Why does the report into the management of Burton’s parole state that all incidents of non-compliance were responded to within 1 week, in line with the enforcement guidelines for offenders on the offender warning system, when those guidelines actually state that for offenders on the offender warning system action should be taken immediately—not a week later—following repeat acts of non-compliance; and was nothing done until 12 December simply because of an overlooking of the guidelines, or because the probation officer concerned was still on holiday?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The reports are technically and legally correct in their conclusions. However, the action that was undertaken by probation staff could have been performed in a more timely manner. We have moved to make changes to ensure that action will be immediate, and that we make contact within 24 hours with any parolee potentially in breach of parole.

Simon Power: Can the Minister confirm that the offender warning system was established in the aftermath of the Mount Wellington - Panmure Returned Services Association murders to provide more intensive monitoring of parolees at high risk of reoffending, because William Bell’s probation officer had gone on leave just prior to those murders; and does not the failure to take action immediately against Burton, as the offender warning system guidelines outline, mean that the Minister’s department had learnt nothing from the William Bell murders in Panmure?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I can confirm that prior to the William Bell murders, under the National Government, there was no offender warning system. We moved to implement that system to ensure that the 600-plus parolees who are currently under that system have the closest level of scrutiny. There must be swifter, firmer action when we have information that indicates any form of breach. We are changing those procedures.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Exactly who is the questioner and who is the Minister here? I heard a question being asked, then that person proceeded to spend the next few seconds—in fact, many seconds—shouting across the House, presumably giving himself his own answer. With respect, we cannot hear what is going on when that happens, and I would like to hear the Minister’s answer again.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member; it is a timely intervention. Those who ask questions expect that the question will be addressed. If the person addressing it cannot be heard, then one wonders what the purpose in asking the question is. I remind members to provide courtesy to each other when asking and answering questions; otherwise, we will have to have them repeated each time.

Simon Power: Can the Minister confirm whether Cathryn Elsworth, the acting general manager who wrote the report into the management of Burton’s parole, is the same acting manager mentioned in the report as being involved in discussions about Burton’s breach and recall action, or a different one?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I am informed that she is not the same acting manager, but I will check that fact.

Crimes Act—Substituted Section 59, Legal Opinion

6. SUE BRADFORD (Green) to the Minister of Justice: Has he received any recent expert legal opinion on the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill; if so, who was the author?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): Yes; I have seen a copy of a legal opinion prepared by Sir Geoffrey Palmer, President of the Law Commission, in response to the opinion of Peter McKenzie QC.

Sue Bradford: What does Sir Geoffrey Palmer say about Gordon Copeland’s assertion that the amended bill would expose parents to the risk of prosecution if they placed their child on a naughty mat?

Hon MARK BURTON: In the opinion I have seen, Sir Geoffrey Palmer disagrees with Gordon Copeland’s assertion, and states: “We disagree with the assertion that the effect of our draft will be to prohibit time out by exposing parents who use it to the risk of prosecution.”

Lynne Pillay: Does Sir Geoffrey conclude it is likely that parents would face prosecution and conviction if they placed their child on a naughty mat for time out, and why does Sir Geoffrey think it highly unlikely that parents would ever be prosecuted for doing so?

Hon MARK BURTON: Sir Geoffrey has noted that the Solicitor-General’s prosecution guidelines require prosecutors to exercise their discretion and to assess the likelihood of achieving a conviction. He advises that even if there were a prosecution, it is questionable whether in such cases—for example, time-out cases—a jury would ever properly convict beyond reasonable doubt. That may tell against the likelihood of prosecution.

Gordon Copeland: Has the Minister seen the report from the Law Commission of November 2006, signed by Sir Geoffrey Palmer, and the report signed by Peter McKenzie QC of March 2007, each of which states that parents cannot rely on a defence of corrective purpose when they take a child for time out, and therefore that action will constitute an assault under the Crimes Act?

Hon MARK BURTON: I have seen the reports the member refers to. The pertinent point is that the police will continue to investigate cases where suspected child abuse takes place. They do so now, and they will do so in the future. Basically, that is not changing.

Sue Bradford: Does the Law Commission conclude that it would be a good idea to further amend the bill in order to achieve a more robust exception for the time-out situation, and does it express any reservations about pursuing such an amendment?

Hon MARK BURTON: Yes, it expresses reservations about pursuing such a course. Although the Law Commission understands there may be a good intention, it points out very clearly that further amendments would, in all likelihood, have the reverse effect of exposing children to a greater degree of risk.

Gordon Copeland: I seek the leave of the House to table the Law Commission report of 8 November 2006, which states in clause 12 that parents cannot rely upon a corrective purpose for their actions in reference to time out.

Leave granted.

Gordon Copeland: I seek the leave of the House to table the report from Peter McKenzie QC dated 2 March 2007, which similarly concludes that a parent would be potentially subject to action under the Crimes Act for assaults in respect of time out.

Leave granted.

Sue Bradford: I seek the leave of the House to table a letter from Sir Geoffrey Palmer, President of the Law Commission, dated 8 March 2007, which gives further opinion on this matter.

Leave granted.

Early Childhood Education—Free Hours, Number of Recipients

7. KATHERINE RICH (National) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by his pre-election statement that “86,000 children will definitely get 20 free hours under Labour”; if so, based on his officials’ latest estimates, how many 3 and 4-year-olds will receive 20 free hours on 1 July 2007?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): Yes, I stand by my statement made prior to the election that “86,000 children will be worse off” under National’s plan to axe the 20 hours’ free early childhood education policy. The House will recall, of course, that National itself went on to offer a complicated tax credit system that would have seen some parents eligible under its scheme saving up receipts, contacting the Inland Revenue Department, and waiting for their returns to be processedat the end of the year before receiving some support for having their children in early childhood education. The voters, as we know, rejected that policy, soundly.

Katherine Rich: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance as to whether that answer addressed the question. The Minister went off on a wild tangent about National and tax credits, whereas my question asked, “based on his officials’ latest estimates, how many 3 and 4-year-olds will actually get 20 free hours’ early childhood education. It was quite specific, and I think the Minister made no attempt to address that question.

Madam SPEAKER: I think if you look at the question, you will see that it did actually raise pre-election statements, and, as such, the Minister, I think, did address the question.

Katherine Rich: When having access to 20 free hours’ early childhood education and actually getting it are concepts that are worlds apart, will he answer the question I asked in the primary question, which was, based on his officials’ latest estimates, how many 3 and 4-year-old children will actually receive 20 free hours’ early childhood education as at 1 July 2007?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: As the member has been told frequently, and as recently as question No. 3 today, up to 92,000 3 to 4-year-olds in teacher-led centres—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Up to.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: —I have always said the words “up to”, as the member well knows—will receive access to this policy.

Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. Members want the Minister to address the question. Please let the rest of us hear the answer to the question.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: As I said, up to 92,000 3 to 4-year-olds in teacher-led centres will gain access to this policy on 1 July. As the member has already been told numerous times, the policy is currently being discussed with centres around the country. She would know, if she knew the policy—which she obviously does not—that come April, parents will receive forms that will allow them to go to their local centre and attest that their child re-enrolled there. We will get a better estimate of actual uptake at that time, but 92,000 of them will be eligible.

Dianne Yates: Has the Minister any concerns about the implementation of the 20 hours’ free early childhood education policy?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I am deeply concerned that a policy that is popular amongst parents and amongst the entire early childhood sector is often put at risk by the misleading statements made by National Party members, and by the confusion they are raising around the rules. They have misrepresented the early childhood education sector consistently, and they have undermined the programme. The only reason I can see that we would be concerned about this policy is that National Party members are committed to scrapping it and they are campaigning so they can do so at the present time.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Why does the Minister not just front up and admit that he was thrown a hospital pass by his predecessor, Trevor Mallard, that the quoted figure was calculated on the number of 3 and 4-year-olds enrolled in early childhood education centres at the time, and that, given the complications that have arisen over funding issues, that figure may have been an overestimation?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Mr Mallard is well known for his rugby skills. He is part of the parliamentary world-beating rugby team, and I think we could say this was a very good pass by a well-honed first-five, really. The 92,000 figure—if the member is interested—of course, is the number of enrolled 3 to 4-year-olds in centres. That is why the phrase “up to” and the word “eligible” are used: because that is the number of children who are there. It is a voluntary policy. We have offered the policy and now we are seeing what the uptake will be. But, as the Prime Minister said earlier, we remain very optimistic; so far, the uptake looks as though it is very strong.

Katherine Rich: When the situation of only one child receiving a 20-free-hour space could meet the Minister’s scenario of up to 92,000 children potentially having access to his policy, why is he not worried, 4 months out from the policy going live, that he has no idea how many kids will actually receive 20 free hours’ early childhood education, and no idea how many centres will actually take up his policy—yet he is banking on a flashy television campaign to encourage parents to put pressure on local centres?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: There were a lot of questions there, but let me just say that the scenario the member was painting is silly, of course. She was trying to use hyperbole, I suppose. [Interruption] I say thank you for the support—National members do change their minds a lot, so it is good to see they are supporting this policy now.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister please address the question.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I say, in answer to the last question, that I do not know why the National Party does not want this policy to be promoted to parents. I know it is because those members dislike the policy, but we intend to make sure that every single parent who is eligible knows about it.

Katherine Rich: Is the Minister’s 20 free hours’ policy basically just another subsidy; if not, why is it different from a subsidy?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I think that all parents in the country who are working, and who want to ensure that their children are in quality educational settings for 3 and 4-year-olds, are looking at this policy now as something that will make a positive contribution, not only to the education of their children but to their household finances—and parents are deeply alarmed at the way that Katherine Rich and Paula Bennett continue to undermine this outstanding policy. I thank them for their general defence of it, but they should simply get on board and let parents have 20 free hours of early childhood education.

Katherine Rich: What is the budget for the Minister’s flashy advertising campaign, including production and media costs, to promote 20 free hours’ free early childhood education—because the $260,000 he says it is costing will go nowhere towards paying for the production of television advertisements and for high-profile slots on prime time television?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I actually do not have precise figures, but the member has mentioned, pretty much, what the figure will be. It will be a straightforward campaign that will simply ensure that all parents are able to access a policy they favour. I tell the National members to go on undermining the policy and attacking it, because we are really looking forward to a fourth term.

Dr Pita Sharples: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I seek leave to table an article from the Press of 29 January 2007: “Child care subsidy a good exercise in government spin”.

Leave granted.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I seek leave to table a statement from the Hon Bill English made on 27 May 2004, announcing that the 20-hour entitlement will be welcomed by all families.

Leave granted.

Road Safety Campaign—School Students

8. JILL PETTIS (Labour) to the Minister of Police: What recent reports has she received regarding traffic safety issues for young New Zealanders going to and from school?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police): I have seen a report stating that 1, 330 children in the 5 years up to 2005 were killed or injured near schools during school terms, particularly during the high-risk morning and afternoon periods. A significant risk is posed to schoolchildren by speeding drivers. That is why the New Zealand Police is focusing on reducing the speed of drivers around schools—something that has received overwhelming support.

Jill Pettis: Has the Minister seen a report that the police are issuing tickets in order to gather revenue at the lower speed bands; if so, is this correct?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes, the National spokesperson on the police made this claim yesterday, even though the National Party was provided with information about why ticketing had increased in those lower speed bands last year. As police statistics show, from the commencement of the “Speed Kills Kids” campaign, an average of 5,770 tickets were issued each month around schools. This accounts for 90 percent of all tickets in the lower speed bands. The lower the speed, the more chance a child struck by a car has of surviving. Most parents welcome this enforcement but the National Party is not interested in saving children’s lives; it is interested only in the headlines it can get.

Peter Brown: Does the Minister accept that in some areas there is confusion as to where a school speed zone actually starts, particularly where the school is not obviously seen from the road; and if she does accept that, does she also accept that the speed zone and the limit should be made much more clear to the public?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Most schools are very clearly signposted as to where they are; where they are not, that is an issue. But most New Zealanders know that the speed limit is actually 50 kilometres an hour. There is an allowance of 4 kilometres over this level around schools. I suggest to people who are driving near schools that if they see a sign that says “School” they slow down. That is what New Zealanders want. I would like to show the House—

Madam SPEAKER: Order! It is again becoming difficult to hear the Minister. Would she please continue.

Hon ANNETTE KING: I would like to show the House this graph that points out very clearly that the issuing of tickets started when the campaign against speed around schools started, and stopped during the school holidays. I believe that one of my whānau was set up by Mr Power, who did not give him all the information and made him look like a fool. I think that was a deliberate ploy because Mr Power could not handle the police portfolio.

Madam SPEAKER: Point of order—[Interruption] If members wish to remain in the House, there will be silence during the point of order.

Hon Paul Swain: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek leave of the House for the National spokesperson to ask a supplementary question on this, given he had a lot to say about it yesterday.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is not right for the Minister to insinuate that a colleague of a member of Parliament has made him, by a process of misinformation, look a fool, particularly when this member looks a fool all by himself.

Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. We will have no more of those points of order.

Hon ANNETTE KING: I seek leave to table the graph that shows that the number of tickets issued relates to the Speed Kills Kids campaign and is very clear as to why this campaign was undertaken and it is not for the purposes that the National Party tried to claim.

Leave granted.

Judith Collins: I seek leave of the House to table a map of the Prime Minister’s motorcade trip through Timaru, including the school zones that she travelled through at 150 kilometres an hour.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Health Services—Whanganui District Health Board

9. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: Does he have confidence in the quality of service provided by the Whanganui District Health Board over the past year, and why?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): For the most part I do. However, the quality of service in some areas has clearly not been up to scratch, which is why there has been a series of responses from the Ministry of Health and from the Health and Disability Commissioner.

Hon Tony Ryall: Why does he still have confidence in the members of the Whanganui District Health Board, when investigations are now under way into botched sterilisations, 600 patients—including a number with cancer—missed out on specialist care because of a so-called systems error, and there has been a never-ending series of staffing crises in ophthalmology, paediatrics, and obstetrics; why does he still have confidence in the members of this board?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Because right now they are much more part of the solution than they are part of the problem.

Jill Pettis: Would the Minister advise the detail of the assistance he has provided to Wanganui Hospital?

Hon PETE HODGSON: There have been a number of initiatives. A major review, which began last May, is due for completion in the next couple of weeks. The aim is to identify improvement that can be made because of the new, $30 million building project now under construction. In December last year the ministry put the district health board on an intensive monitoring framework, and appointed a very senior adviser to ensure the board is able to comprehensively address the issues it faces. Further assistance may be offered the district health board shortly.

Barbara Stewart: Is it fair to say that the ongoing saga of inadequate staffing levels and medical mishaps being experienced by the people of Wanganui and their district health board is symptomatic of workforce problems throughout the country; if so, what is the Minister doing to rectify the situation?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member raises a very good point. It seems to me that the future of the Whanganui District Health Board is bright; however, for it to secure that future it must be much more active in developing a regional approach to the configuration of services. That is precisely what I told the board when I met with it most recently—I think, about 2 weeks ago. I am pleased to say that it warmly agreed with me.

Hon Tony Ryall: Can the Minister imagine what the people of Wanganui must think is going on in their hospital, with this never-ending series of crises; and is it not time that he put the members of the Whanganui District Health Board out of their misery and started afresh?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member, it seems, always likes a little bit of blood. I would much rather have a solution.

Hon Tony Ryall: Does the Minister not realise that it is the fact of blood, the fact of the torment of women who have gone through failed sterilisations, of patients who should have seen cancer specialists but did not, and of women being shipped to Palmerston North to have children, and the fact of a district health board member describing his own hospital as being unsafe that make this the sort of issue on which a Minister should step in and say: “You have failed. You should go.”?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I could get to the top of the news any day of the week by sacking the board and appointing a commissioner. It is an option that is open to me, and it remains open to me. I would much prefer to think through the best way to have this matter resolved. Simply sacking the board, though it looks nice and strong and decisive, would not actually achieve anything; the following day, the hospital would still be there, the people of Wanganui would still need care, and there would be no board to give it. It is an option, it is still an option for me, and I have not said I will not do it, but I say to the member that when I do it, it will be because I have decided that the board is the problem, and right now it is much more part of the solution than it is the problem.

Hon Tony Ryall: Why does the Minister not take the lead of his predecessor, Mrs King, who, after a year of lurching from crisis to crisis, sacked the board of the Tairāwhiti District Health Board; why does he not do the same with this district health board, which is simply failing to deliver the care that its own people expect? Can he not imagine what the people of Wanganui are now thinking, with this never-ending series of crises? He should take the lead from Mrs King and put these people out of their misery.

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member has, it seems, one solution only: if there is a problem, go and sack someone. I might say that running a health system is a little more complicated than that, and a little more subtle. I will say that in respect of paediatrics, obstetrics, gynaecology, missing patients, and a doctor who apparently cannot carry out laparoscopic operations, sacking the board does not fix any of those things, as long as the board is part of the solution. The minute the board becomes part of the problem, it is gone.

Chester Borrows: Does the Minister agree that, in answer to repeated questions in this House regarding the operation of the Whanganui District Health Board since October 2005, the Minister has always argued that the incidents were isolated; and what confidence can Wanganui people have that there will not be another tragic, isolated incident tomorrow, or the day after that, or the day after that?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Despite the dearth of questioning on the Whanganui District Health Board from the member for Whanganui, I do not consider these matters entirely in isolation. Why would I have this board on the most intensive monitoring framework that there is? The member does not realise that months before he came upon trouble at his own district health board the ministry and myself were on to it. We remain on to it.

Madam SPEAKER: Members require Ministers to address questions. You have a Minister who is addressing the question. Please hear the Minister in silence.

Hon PETE HODGSON: I say to the member that I think the Whanganui District Health Board continues to need both attention and assistance from the centre. It will get attention and assistance from the centre because the people of Wanganui deserve it.

Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill—Level of Support in House

10. TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Independent—Mangere) to the Minister of State Services: Is the Government confident it has the numbers in the House to pass the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services): I am working on that support, and I am hopeful it will be forthcoming.

Taito Phillip Field: Given the possible and likely loss of control to an Australian regime, and the publicly stated industry expectation of up to a 50 percent loss of business in the natural health products industry as a result of the introduction of this legislation—not to mention the loss of innovation in the industry—is the Minister not concerned that this bill will be passed without the New Zealand public’s full understanding of the serious consequences this legislation may pose?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Unfortunately I have not had the opportunity to brief the member on what is in the bill. I am very happy to take the time to do that, because, unfortunately, I believe that some of the information the member has used is misinformation that has been peddled by some opponents of this bill.

Sue Kedgley: If the Government does not have the numbers to get the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill passed, would it not be sensible to withdraw the bill now, before the select committee hearings begin, rather then go through a potentially embarrassing political process of having a Government bill defeated in the House?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I strongly uphold the democratic process, which allows the public to have a say. Although that member has spent a lot of time trying to keep this out of the public arena, I am pleased that all New Zealanders have an opportunity to make a submission on this bill, not just the people whom Sue Kedgley has arranged to send emails to everybody.

Taito Phillip Field: Is the Minister concerned that the Asian, Māori, and Pacific communities will lose their health freedoms to use a large proportion of their traditional remedies, medicines, and health products—I am aware there is a proposed exemption for Māori, but the question relates to other sections of New Zealand society?

Hon ANNETTE KING: That is a very good question because it is one of the areas where there has been misunderstanding. It does not matter whether a traditional medicine is Māori, Chinese, or Polynesian, in terms of traditional medicine it is exempt from this bill.

Hone Harawira: Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Is the Government confident that it has the support of its own Māori MPs to pass the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill, given the major concerns raised by Māori that this bill directly threatens Māori cultural integrity and intellectual property rights over rongoā Māori and other traditional medicines, and the call from right throughout Māori society that all Māori MPs should oppose this bill?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I am confident of my Māori colleagues’ support because, first of all, they understand what is in the bill, and, secondly, they know that it does not affect traditional Māori rongoā, and that is one of the pieces of misinformation that has been peddled.

Hone Harawira: Is the Government confident that it has the support of its own Māori MPs to pass the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill, given the decision by Australian officials to oppose the inclusion of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in the bill and the rumblings emanating from within Labour’s Māori caucus that they are uncomfortable about silently supporting the Government on decisions that clearly work against Māori interests?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I am confident of the support of my Māori colleagues, and I need to say to the member that the last clause that included the Treaty of Waitangi was put through by this member as a Minister of Health. It is a decision of this Government that Treaty clauses in overarching legislation of the past have caused a lot of difficulty in terms of interpretation, and that this legislation does not require it because under the way it works both Māori and Pākehā will be protected. This is what this bill is about—the protection of people’s health. I have not heard members who oppose this bill ever talk about the safety of the public. They talk about caring for children, they talk about caring for communities, but they are quite happy for New Zealanders to have arsenic and lead in their so-called medicine, with no regulation at all.

Hon Tony Ryall: Can the Minister explain how she was upholding democratic principles when she ratified this treaty against the will of the majority of Parliament, and can she confirm that her Government’s own official documents acknowledge that the number of natural health products available in New Zealand will drop by between 60 and 65 percent under this proposed Australian arrangement, restricting the number of products New Zealanders have and denying business to many innovators in this country?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I will put this Government’s record around democratic process next to that member who was in a Government—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Sandra Goudie will be out of the House if she keeps shouting that way, and also Judith Collins. It is very difficult to hear the Minister. Now please just lower the tones of your interventions.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Why do you not take the time to also point to Michael Cullen who has a lot to say on these matters, to Steve Maharey who never stops talking, to Chris Carter who yaks from end of question time to the other, to Rick Barker, the retired movie star, etc., or for that matter Parekura Horomia—

Madam SPEAKER: Would Mr Brownlee please be seated; yes I do. I have actually looked at them, called for order, and it has been given. It is just that your voices are louder and therefore can be heard across the Chamber, particularly when you ask Ministers questions, they are attempting to answer them, and then you shout them down. That is the issue. I do not mind the odd intervention, but it is very difficult to hear. Then I get members at the back of the Chamber asking for a repeat because they cannot hear. I am trying to balance legitimate intervention while at the same time Ministers have to address the question and everyone has to hear.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Getting some balance does not help by choosing to name only members on this side of the House.

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry, but they are the members who are repeat offenders, and that is why I am giving them a warning.

Hon ANNETTE KING: I stand by the record of this Government in terms of a democratic process when it comes to this bill. We have spent many, many years consulting on this project—a project, let me remind this House, that was started by a National Government.

Hon Bill English: Yes.

Hon ANNETTE KING: Bill English says “yes”, because he was part of it. When National went into Opposition it thought there were few votes in it so stopped supporting it. I remind this House that a treaty on food standards was signed in the 1990s. Parliament was never consulted—it was pushed through, and they talk about sovereignty! The food standards setting authority we have gives New Zealand one vote out of 10; that is the National Party record.

Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table an official consultation paper that acknowledges the number of existing natural health products available in New Zealand will drop between 60 and 65 percent under the Government’s proposal.

Leave granted.

Question No. 5 to Minister

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In response to a supplementary question from Simon Power, in which he asked about Cathryn Elsworth, I would just like to clarify that Cathryn Elsworth is acting area manager of the Dunedin-Invercargill area of the Department of Corrections. She had no involvement whatsoever with the management of Graeme Burton prior to doing the internal report.

State Housing—Income-related Rents

11. RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) to the Minister of Housing: What reports has he received on the success of the Government’s policy of income-related rents for State house tenants?

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing): The Labour-led Government introduced income-related rents in November 2000. Income-related rents for State houses have been a major success, lifting tens of thousands of families out of poverty, slashing hospital admissions for diseases that breed in overcrowded houses, and giving kids a better chance to succeed at school.

Russell Fairbrother: What other reports has the Minister seen expressing support for income-related rents?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: Income-related rents have been such a success that even National, which has spent 20 years opposing them, appears now to have flip-flopped and may adopt this core Labour policy, according to its leader, Mr Key; although, of course, we are yet to hear whether National’s housing spokesperson or, indeed, National’s caucus, agrees, or has even been consulted. I suppose imitation is the highest form of flattery.

Pita Paraone: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Is the Minister concerned, at the increasing percentage of refugee and immigrant families now occupying State housing, notwithstanding New Zealand’s obligations to the United Nations; if not, why not, and can he assure the House that New Zealanders in need are not going without housing as a result?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: Housing New Zealand Corporation operates a needs-based programme for appointment to housing vacancies as they come up. All people living in them must be New Zealand residents or citizens.

Lynne Pillay: What reports has the Minister seen about support for increased provision of social housing in west Auckland?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: Confused reports! The local MP for the Hobsonville area is vehemently opposed to social housing being built at the former Hobsonville airbase. He has expressed that view in local media as well as public meetings in west Auckland. It seems that social housing is OK in other people’s electorates, but not in Mr Key’s.

Labour, Department—Confidence

12. PAULA BENNETT (National) to the Minister of Labour: Does she have confidence in the Department of Labour; if so, why?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour): Yes, but there is always room for improvement.

Paula Bennett: How does she justify her department last year spending nearly $19 million on consultants, including $16 million worth of contracts that were not put out for tender?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I will make two points on that. I do support consultants being used where there is a specific and clear service required for which a permanent staff member should not be employed. That is appropriate. The non-tendering provisions used by the Department of Labour do comply with Cabinet guidelines in terms of what amounts should be tendered for or must be tendered for. The third point I make is that this was during a period of the baseline review and restructuring of the Department of Labour in the 2005-06 to 2006-07 years, with extrapolations for 2007, obviously, to the end of the financial year. There has actually been a decrease in the use of consultants of 30 percent. That is good.

Paula Bennett: In light of the Minister’s answer, particularly her second point, why did her department last year deliberately breach Cabinet’s mandatory rules for procurement, which were endorsed by Cabinet on 18 April 2006, by awarding 11 contracts in excess of $100,000 without holding a tender?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I have been advised that the guidelines have not been breached.

Paula Bennett: How does she explain the fact that last year 67 staff in the Department of Labour were paid salaries in excess of $120,000, and does that not look like a department that is out of control?

Hon RUTH DYSON: With regret, I am not responsible for setting salaries for any department officials.

Paula Bennett: How does she justify her department’s increasing permanent staff by 303 people last year, and then spending $4.2 million hiring temporary staff, as well?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Throughout the entire 1990s the Department of Labour had very little to do other than to assist in dismantling Government services. Now it is involved in things like the workplace productivity agenda, the introduction and expansion of paid parental leave, implementing pay and employment equity, and facilitating good employer-employee relationships through the partnership resource centre. None of that work was being done under the previous National Government and, actually, the department needs staff to do it well.

Paula Bennett: Is she willing to admit that the real reason the chief executive, James Buwalda, resigned a year before his contract was up is that her department has become so dysfunctional that if he did not resign, he would have been sacked anyway?

Hon RUTH DYSON: No, and could I suggest that the member spends less time looking at Murray McCully’s view on the world and more time listening to the real world.

Peter Brown: Will the Minister confirm that the Department of Labour has, upon her instructions, organised two New Zealand First initiatives—firstly, a review of physiotherapist funding under the accident compensation scheme, and, secondly, an investigation into casualised employment in this country—and does she not believe that although there have been glitches, thus far it has gone very, very well, and that the department should be congratulated on that?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I can confirm the points raised in the member’s question. Both the review of the funding of physiotherapy and the review of casualisation and its effects on New Zealand workers and their families have been instigated by New Zealand First. In my view, the outcomes of those reviews will be of benefit to our whole society.

© Scoop Media